Friday, October 30, 2009

How Not to Fight a War

Regardless of the decision President Obama makes on Afghanistan, whether to escalate or to retreat, his protracted deliberations on the issue, while viewed as professorial to some, also belies a tell of indifference or lack of resolve to others including our enemies. Afghanistan, to be fair, is a colossal mess. Mostly historic but some self inflicted. Perhaps George Bush did take his eye off of the prize for shot at bigger glory in Iraq, after the initial defeat of the Taliban, but they don't call Afghanistan the graveyard of empires for nothing. Nevertheless, the President's continued "dithering", as former VP Dick Cheney calls it, combined with the blame it on Bush ad nauseam from the White House, assists in the narrative that Barack Obama doesn't wish to fight any war, whether out of "necessity" or not, and that is the most troubling aspect of all.

I agree that it's not worth sending good people to die if all we are going to do is pay people off like we did in Irag. Let's be honest, the surge worked because we paid people vast sums of money not to try and kill us. This is the strategy, in part, that General McChrystal has proposed to win friends and influence our enemies in Afghanistan. Great program if you can print money at will, but we can't even afford our own entitlement programs in the U.S. let alone new ones for generations of Afghanis. God forbid should the money run out. Witness the return of al Quaeda in Iraq. As soon as we notified everyone that we would be leaving and taking our money with us, look who returned to the streets of Baghdad. The same will happen in Afghanistan unless we make a firm commitment to stay, and buy time.

Time to try and convince those (including Obama himself perhaps) who still may think that radical Islamists will leave us alone if only we would leave them alone. I am convinced that most of the world have yet to figure out that they too are in the crosshairs of al Quaeda and that it will take us all, in a united front, to stop them in their tracks. Witness a recent resolution adopted by the corrupt United Nations condemning defamation of religion. "Defamation of religion is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence," the adopted text read, adding that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." Wrongly associated? Are you kidding me? This might be a swell resolution if it weren't for the fact that it was brought by Pakistan and other Islamic countries who feel that since 9/11, their religion has been stigmatized and persecuted for no good reason. How about 3000 for a start.

Our retreat from Afghanistan will only empower those who already view us as weak and will enable them to regroup and plan bad things under the auspices of a friendly government. I believe, as do others, that if we abandon the fight now, we will undoubtedly have to return only to face a more powerful foe in the future. And as George W always maintained, better to fight them there than here.

But even that strategy has its price. From its inception, you just knew the Karzai government was going to be a loser. The same could be said for several of our other so-called buddies in the region, like Pakistan. Sometimes you just gotta dance with them that's ugly. Even then though you have to know how to lead or else you and your partner take a horrific tumble. It's imperative that we try and establish a working government who can at least be amenable to democracy, no more corrupt than the last guy (even if it remains the last guy) (hell even we have Charles Rangel) and will not try and subvert us at every turn. Then and only then, can we at least give our soldiers a chance at beating back the enemies of freedom, eviscerating any chance for al Quaeda from ever using Afghanistan as a safe house, and putting us on a path for a legitimate exit.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

The Tipping Point Part 2


Despite more Americans calling themselves conservative, the Republican Party has yet to capitalize on this seismic shift beneath their feet. The momentum behind this realignment is due, in part, to a very large number of independent voters who, having married the dreamy Obama candidate now find themselves seeking an annulment from the progressively insane presidential Obama. What the pundits found so cataclysmic last year, a demonstrable shift from center-right to center-left, was entirely ethereal.

However there is a very real battle now for the hearts and souls of the conservative minded. Just last week, Sarah Palin endorsed the Conservative Party's candidate Doug Hoffman, over his Republican rival and Democrat challenger in a special election for a congressional seat in New York. Now I know why Palin titled her new book Going Rogue. The GOP, along with notables like Newt Gingrich, endorsed the Republican Party candidate. Look for figures like Palin, Ron Paul, or Mike Huckabee, and even television personalities like Mr. Independent Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck to position themselves as national leaders for this emergent crowd. Despite the outcome of next weeks election, Mr. Hoffman will not be the last tea party or grass roots newbie to challenge rino (Republican in name only) Republicans in their own neighborhoods.

The tea party people and other grass roots organizers, the ones that fueled last spring's tax protests and this summer's town hall meetings, are looking for leaders who share their frustrations and conservative values and who will adopt their agenda of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and personal liberty. But, just as they can sense a rino in their midst, they also have a nose for "instant" tea party posers who often glom onto the enthusiastic crowds for their own glory.

The Tipping Point Part 1

I think it's terrific that several recent polls indicate a that a number of people are making a shift to the right in their preference of political ideology. More people are describing their politics as conservative then they did just a year ago. The answer is not surprising given the Obama administration's zeal for big programs, big spending and big tax hikes. What is surprising is that just a few short months ago, after Obama's historic election and inauguration, pundits across this country were writing their epitaphs for the Republican Party, conservatives in general, and proclaiming a future Democrat governing majority for decades to come. So my thanks to BO, Senator's Reid, Dodd, Schumer, et al, Representative's Pelosi, Frank, Rangel, Obey, etc. We couldn't have done it without you. Now that's change I can believe in!

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Health Care Vs. Liberty?

The following article is contributed by Donald Dale Milne, Secretary for the the Saginaw County Republican Party.

I note with concern that in the health care debate, the question of individual liberty seldom arises. I believe this should be the first question to be addressed, in this debate and all issues. Individual liberty is the opportunity for each person to determine his actions according to his own evaluation of what is best for himself. No king, slave owner, employer, or government bureaucrat making decisions for us. The whole of human history has been an attempt to move away from these controls by others and to more individual liberty. That is the entire basis and meaning of the United States of America, the only place where humanity has achieved the goal of individual liberty in significant measure for any good length of time.

So, I’m going to examine the relationship between individual liberty and health care. Health care impinges on individual liberty at many points in the health care system, beginning with you and me. Your doctor and pharmacist are also impacted, as are insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, nursing homes and other businesses in the health care field. Finally, our governments: local, state and federal, have all entered our health care system at various points. The current debate happens because the federal government is proposing to become even more deeply involved in everyone’s health care. With regard to individual liberty, the question to investigate is, “What type of system best allows me to choose how much insurance I purchase (if any), who I want to contract with for care, what type of care I purchase, how much care I purchase, where I go for care, and when do I receive care?” The answer will be a system that places “you” at each decision-making point and excludes anyone else. To highlight how a system might place “you” at the decision-making points, I’m going to compare buying health care to something simple that anyone can understand: buying a pizza.

Suppose you wake up and decide you would like a pizza for dinner tonight. When buying a pizza, you can decide the size, flavor, style, where to buy it, where to eat it, how much to pay, whether to pay cash or credit, and whether you even buy a pizza or not. In short, you decide every detail of your pizza choice, taking into consideration your own opinions of taste, preparation time, cost, freshness, etc. In health care, this is not usually true.

Our health care usually works more like this: Suppose you wake up and one eye is swollen shut and you decide you should have a doctor look at it today. So, you call for an appointment with a doctor on the approved participating list from your health insurance company. No opportunity for you to choose a doctor based on your opinions of competence, ease of visiting, cost, or anything else. In fact, you probably have never received any information on any of these factors, and could not make an informed choice if you were allowed to! If you get to see the doctor today, which is not assured as the appointment time is her choice, you do not pay as you leave the office. You have no opportunity to consider a method of payment, as you are not charged directly. Your insurance company or government plan will make payment at some future date without even asking you whether you received adequate service. They may even bill you for a co-pay without considering your opinion on cost, method of payment or anything else. If the insurance company will pay, you will find that you did not even have a voice in choosing the insurance, your employer did that for you without consideration of your opinions on cost, services purchased, history of adequate services, ease of billing, or anything else. What happened to your liberty?

For many of us, others make these major decisions in our health care purchases. Our employer may decide what insurance company we get a policy from, and all the details of the policy. Our insurance company may decide what doctors we can go to and how much we pay for services if they don’t cover them. If you are on Medicaid, Medicare, or are a Veteran, a government may decide the details of what care you get. Very few of us have a direct contract between a doctor and ourselves. What happened to your liberty?

And the proposals being debated in Congress create an even worse situation, taking away the last remnants of our individual liberty by creating a single government health care bureaucracy to decide all details for us!

Why are some people fooled into thinking this is a good idea? Employers used to create company towns to dictate where we lived, and I doubt we want to go back to those dismal days. Slave owners made all decisions for their slaves, and that’s universally thought to be a bad system now. History has endless examples of why the government is a bad way to run things when a king ran it, so we have no kings anymore. We can see by simply watching the news that government still runs things poorly by looking at our roads, schools, Veterans’ hospitals, parks, prisons, etc. We all have at least one area where we are certain that somebody could run it better than government. So, why do we want the have the government, employers, insurance companies, or anyone else in charge of our health care decisions? The simple fact is that no one can make decisions for us as well as we can do it ourselves!

So, why isn’t the health care debate focused on restoring your lost liberty? Why are nearly all parties proposing ways to steal even more of your self-determination? Why do you put up with this lopsided debate instead of insisting on your freedom? Congress is running exactly opposite of the direction they should be on health care. They are trying to create a system with less individual liberty, instead of more. The change we need is to REMOVE government, employers, insurance companies, and anyone else from the system, so that individuals contract directly with doctors, hospitals, and other care providers.

Wouldn’t this be better? Suppose you wake up and one eye is swollen shut and you decide you should have a doctor look at it today. So, you call for an appointment with a doctor of your choice, taking into consideration your opinions of competence, ease of visiting, cost, etc. You can look up plenty of information on these factors in the doctors’ ads and perhaps a rating system. Because you are choosing the doctor, if she doesn’t have the appointment time you want, you can try another doctor to get what you want. As you leave the office, you pay for the visit with your choice of cash, credit, insurance billing, or check based on your opinions of total cost, ease of payment, etc. and you’re all done. If you have an insurance company billed, it is a company of your choice, taking into consideration your opinions on cost, services covered, history of adequate services, ease of billing, etc. You have successfully bought your medical exam, with very complete freedom of choice. There’s our individual liberty!

What would it take to create such a system from where we are today?

First, we need to get employers out of buying our health insurance. There is no economic, health care, or insurance actuarial reason to group people together by their place of employment, as these people have nothing else in common with each other. The major reason this system exists is that it is given tax breaks by the government. If the tax breaks for businesses were gone, it would make no sense for the business to provide your health insurance: after all, your employer doesn’t provide your car, groceries, cable tv, child care, or movie tickets. If you buy your own health care insurance, it would act much like your car insurance and likely would be less expensive for many people.

Maybe you think you’re getting “free” health coverage from your employer. You really know better than that: nothing is free because someone has to pay for it. It may not be you at this very moment, but you can be assured that you pay for everything somewhere down the road. Let’s start with the health insurance your employer chooses for you. He pays for it. If he didn’t buy your health insurance, where would that money go? Well, it could go a lot of other places, and nearly all of them would be good for you. He could pay you more directly in your wages. He could invest more money in the business, thus making it more likely that you will keep your job. He could lower his prices and still make as much money, meaning people, including you, could afford to buy more of what he and you make, also making it more likely that you will keep your job. He could put the money in his own pocket and spend it himself, which may create more jobs in some other businesses. He could donate it to some charity, accomplishing some community good.

Actually, there is no downside for you when your employer does not buy your health insurance. You get your freedom back and the money still does worthwhile things. But, maybe you’re afraid that you won’t be able to afford your health care costs unless someone else pays for them. That may be true for the small fraction of people who really do not make enough money to buy food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and health care. We’ll get back to them later in the discussion, but for now just note that charities and welfare attempt to cover all those other survival costs and health care need not be any different. For everyone else, you may just have to make new priorities about where you spend your money, including your health insurance.

There are many ways to offer insurance and there would constantly be new choices offered as companies jockeyed for position to get your dollars, just like they do for car insurance, life insurance, house insurance, etc. With millions of customers, insurance companies would need to develop special rates and special plans to attract customers. You could likely get discounts for bundling your health insurance with other insurances, just as you can now for car and home insurance. Some might offer medical savings accounts that you could build up to pay your own health care costs, instead of buying any insurance. Some might even pay you back dividends if you cost them less to insure than they anticipated. Some companies might lower rates for people in more healthy groups, just like non-smokers get better rates on life insurance and accident-free drivers get better rates. Many people might purchase coverage only for things they cannot afford out of pocket, such as a surgery, but pay doctors cash for office visits. Another thing that should happen is that we would get insurance companies out of our doctor choices. While some companies might offer plans that limit you to a list of doctors, other companies would do business differently, allowing you to shop around for the doctor of your choice, either by price, experience, closeness to home, family history, or other factors you decide on. All kinds of plans would be possible, many of which we’ve never even seen before, and many of which would cost you less, both because you could buy just what you want and because of the intense competition. You would choose which company to buy insurance from, taking into consideration your opinions of their costs, financial stability, coverage for your personal needs, etc. And all this multitude of insurance choice would be available and priced so that the companies offering them can make a profit and therefore continue in business to provide coverage, just like food companies, lawn care, furniture or anything else you buy. There’s our individual liberty!

Lastly, we need to get the government out of all health care choices. Government now wants to “reform” its prior meddling in the health care decisions of its citizens, with more meddling. Meddling that has been going on since the decision reached during a time of government wage and price controls, to let employers buy health insurance for workers with untaxed dollars, while if workers buy the same insurance it must be done with taxed dollars. This is a clear meddling in the free market decisions between a person and his doctors and needs to be reformed by removing government from the system.

And, there is simply no need for the massive losses of individual liberty that will occur with the current proposals of even more government involvement. To provide for our every health care need, government would need to write detailed regulations on every health care procedure, review our personal records of health, finance, DNA, and lifestyle, pass judgement on how many doctors get educated and where they can practice, and likely more. Some of this is already written into the current bills and the rest would be needed in the future. Some provisions in bills Congress is considering make it illegal to pay for services out-of-pocket. Another provision states that businesses will be forced to either provide insurance to the government standard or pay an 8% tax, which would create a cost disadvantage to businesses that simply let employees go to the government plan, meaning that eventually all of us would go to the government plan. Some parts of the plan are even exempt from any court challenges! What happened to your liberty? None of this should be allowed: each person should be the only one having and using such information to choose health care for himself.

The system that maximizes individual liberty is instead very simple. You decide what insurance to buy, you decide what health care you need, you decide what doctors to go to, you decide when to go for care, you decide how to make payment. There’s our individual liberty! Your employer is completely out of the picture. Government is completely out of the picture. The insurance company is responsive directly to you as the customer because you pay the bills. The doctors and hospitals are responsive directly to you as the customer because you pay the bills. If you do not pay your bills, the insurance company cancels your coverage and the doctors and hospitals sue you for payment, in the same way any other company you don’t pay would do. There’s our individual liberty!

And, in case you think I’ve forgotten about those people who truly cannot afford food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and health care, let’s take a look at them. We attempt, through both charities and government, to help the truly poor with basic survival needs and health care need not be any different. If you cannot afford food, we have local charity food programs and government food stamps. For shelter, there are local charity shelters and government housing programs. There are also programs for clothing, education, and subsidized public transportation. Most of these provide temporary benefits, as people frequently come and go from the ranks of the poor. Our charitable and government health care efforts should be similar. They should be targeted to the truly needy and should be designed to meet temporary needs. The temporary nature of such programs will allow these people to regain their liberty, and make their own decisions in the future.

You may notice that I have not addresses the cost of government health care. That is because the idea is wrong and therefore if we simply stay with increasing liberty, the cost is not material. However, there are considerations of cost if some government health care plan is implemented. Any plan that truly intends to cover more people for more procedures will cost more, not less as is sometimes claimed. Conversely, any plan that will truly cost less will cover fewer procedures for fewer people. It is an economic impossibility to provide more care at less cost. Costs may be hidden by general taxation, government borrowing, “creative” bookkeeping or other means, but higher costs will exist if more care is provided for more people. Or, if costs are truly cut by paying doctors less per procedure, eliminating insurance companies or other means, then there will be less service provided and we will all receive poorer care and have sacrificed our liberty for no gain.

So please vote NO on any of the current health care bills, because they do not preserve or improve individual liberty. Instead, write and vote for a plan that allows individuals full choice of their own health care decisions.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

We're Just Not That Into You

A new poll by CNN shows a majority of Americans now disagree with President Obama on major issues. Whether it's healthcare, the economy, the environment, you name it, 51% of us don't agree with BO. I think I know why this is so and why these numbers will only increase in the coming months. As he lashed out last night in New York against Wall Street, criticizing them for "reckless speculation and deceptive practices and short-sightedness and self-interestedness from a few," I can't help but think that most of us feel the same about him and his cronies in Washington.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Scary 2

In today's Wall Street Journal, there was an editorial on Michigan's sad economy and the disastrous job that Jennifer Granholm has done. Her effort to shore up a $2 billion plus deficit in 2007, by raising taxes $1.4 billion, has once again created a deficit of $2.8 billion. And after saying "I'm not ever going to raise taxes again," she wants to raise taxes another $600 million. Excuse me? Lying seems to be so fashionable right now doesn't it? Democrat perfidy is the new black.

The most alarming aspect of the article was the statistic that Michigan now has 637,000 public employees and only 500,000 in manufacturing jobs. "Government is the largest employer in the state, but the number of taxpayers to support these government workers is shrinking." We here in Michigan have reached our tipping point. Note to lawmakers; Vote for a tax increase and you will be paying for it from home.

Scary

The author of a story about Predator drone attacks, in the current issue of The New Yorker, said this morning on MSNBC that such attacks are "scary" and that they desensitize us from the very real act of murdering someone. She said that these attacks by remote controlled aircraft are responsible for large numbers of civilian or collateral deaths, in addition to those being targeted for extermination. Effective? Yes. Scary? I sure hope so.

For those trying to keep score in the war between progressives and liberals, socialists and Democrat dogs of both the blue and yellow varieties, while one argues against aerial warfare, another promotes it. War by remote control is the very strategy being pushed by VP Joe Biden in Afghanistan.

Unrelated, but nevertheless just as chilling, the Obama Administration is easing up on strongman Omar al-Bashir, President of Sudan, in the hope (there it is again) that his government will stop the genocide in Darfur. In April, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for al-Bashir's arrest on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Al-Bashir has done nothing to warrant any change in U.S. policy mind you, he just provides another tyrant for Obama to appease.




Friday, October 16, 2009

56% Agree He's Not George Bush

An new Gallup poll finds that 56% of Americans approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as President. Absent winning the Nobel, which by his own acknowledgement was wrongfully awarded, what is there to approve of? Category after category, issue by issue, promises made versus promises kept, have all been disasters. I ask you, who make up this 56% other than perhaps yellow dog Democrats, members of Liars Anonymous, union leaders, Wall Street bankers, community organizers, nascent nuclear countries, ACORN, the media (excluding FOX), the NFL, well you get the picture. Please someone tell me what exactly President Obama does on a daily basis that should elicit approval? Then again, perhaps some of the 56% are Republicans, Independents, or other conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, who are pleased that nothing has been accomplished and therefore approve of the job BO is doing as President. Just a thought.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

You Do The Math

After reading Mr. Sowell's article, realize that the Senate Finance Committee will likely pass out of committee their version of healthcare reform wherein Sen. Baucus (D-MT) has stated that his bill will expand healthcare coverage from 83% of Americans to 94%. In other words, at a cost of only $856 billion, we can cover an additional 11% of our population with healthcare. Remember that in expanding home ownership from 64% to just 69%, only a 5% increase, the world was thrown into what some now describe as the Great Recession at a cost of trillions! Once again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Regularly Frustrated in Michigan

A couple of days ago I came across an article on the web that subscribed to the idea that this past summer's tea parties and seething town hall protests over healthcare and deficit spending have given way to apathy and resignation on the part of some conservatives. That for many of us, these tantrums were only a cathartic and temporary reaction to the "black man as president" stimuli. Hogwash! The latest polls on Obamacare still show a majority dead set against a government takeover of the industry.

Still, it's a tough slog when we are subjected daily to new and variant ways in which the left assault our intelligence and patience and have but our own voices to combat them. For instance. Just yesterday, the Democrats in the House voted overwhelmingly against a Republican attempt to remove Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Why does he even remain a member of Congress? He has admitted to owing over $600,000 in back taxes! Where is the outrage? Full disclosure; I think that Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) should also be removed from Congress for his shenanigans over his adulterous affair.

Continuing to act more like a Chicago alderman than the President of the United States, Obama sends his education chief and his attorney general to Chicago to re-ignite a "discussion" on the ravages of gang violence. Another government program designed to assuage the situation should be forthcoming.

Here in Michigan, the state needs to balance an almost $3 billion budget deficit and the Democrats have voted to raise taxes by $400 million. If we didn't have Obama's "stimulus" money (our money, but that's another story) to offset further cuts, they'd have voted for a bigger tax increase. We have, with the help of some Republican lawmakers, an immovable object in the way of education and spending reform called the Michigan Education Association. For far too long, special interests like the MEA and other public employee unions have had their way with politicians who care more about their jobs then those of their constituents. It's time we reverse that trend and walk a different path, because the one we're on end in a cul-de- sac of misery.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Change and Hope

Terrific article and a great prescription for what ails us.

Change and Hope

Shared via AddThis

Saturday, October 3, 2009

The Emperor's Media Purchased Clothes

There, there Mr. President, they just don't understand you like we do. And anyway, it's George Bush's fault. That's the sentiment from the New York Times in this morning's editorial. After being personally humiliated on a global stage, the NYT finds it necessary to prop up the President even when they admit it was a foolish and questionable gamble in his flying to Copenhagen with a personal appeal for Chicago's Olympic bid. Then the over-the-top fawning really begins.
"Mr. Obama has done important, courageous things to restore America’s standing. After George W. Bush, it feels good — and safer — to know that people around the world feel better about this country and about this president. One of Mr. Obama’s biggest challenges now is finding ways to fully leverage that good will into strong international leadership. And let’s face it, looking like a winner always helps."

What are these important and courageous things that Obama has done? What evidence exists of people around the world feeling better about America? Why do we think that everyone on earth should like Obama? Just because our Apologist-in-Chief says so in a speech, or to the press, doesn't mean it has or will happen in reality. He says things everyday that aren't true. He has ordered Guantanamo closed, but it won't close by his deadline or anyone else's. Yet he still uses this line as a fait accompli. Under his watch the U.S. will no longer torture prisoners. We never did. The economy is improving, despite rising unemployment figures. He won't sign a bill with earmarks, then goes and does exactly that. It goes on and on.

The only thing that is fueling the Obama administration, apart from ego and arrogance, is a remaining contingent of a cloying press. He, his advisors, and the media, wrongfully assume that 99% of what makes a president successful is to just show up. They underestimate the importance of substance. So far, this president, in my estimation, has shown very little substance in everything he does. In other words, he is an empty suit.





Friday, October 2, 2009

Spoiler Alert Update: Oops

A couple of days ago I predicted that Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics was going to be a lead-pipe cinch, opining that President Obama surely wouldn't risk his ego or the significance of his office on something as insignificant as a vote on who got to host the games. Turns out I was wrong. I will give credit to President Obama for trying, however poor his judgement may have been in doing so.